tv [untitled] June 8, 2011 9:30am-10:00am PDT
public agency. in 1997, the board of supervisors passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a non-profit public benefit corporation as the treasure island develop authority to act as a single entity focused on the planning, we development, we construction, rehabilitation, we use, and conversion located on treasure and yerba buena island. for the welfare and common benefit of the residents of the city and county of san francisco. this was said to the budget and fiscal provisions of the city charter. the pellets also allege that fundamental changes to the project description and sponsor objectives that occurred after the eir were circulated means there needs to be further public comment. there was tax fund in using --
features which could in turn result in a full environmental impact. production from 30% to 20% affordable housing. production in height limits. changes have occurred. the planning department has read them all at it and determined that none would result in new significant physical and impacts. as described in detail in a response, none of these revisions are a fundamental change that would result in new significant physical and environmental effects. all were gone over by the planning department, no incident has been found. no physical features of the project have been altered as a result of the financing. development does not need to and is not propose to change.
they would be obligated to deliver public benefit proportionate with the development by phase and sub phase. it includes all the powers, including trusty. without increasing ball or changing separation of powers. therefore, no news in the impacts would result, as explained in the memorandum. yeah appellants also allege that this is -- does not meet ceqa requirements. it suggests the eir should be considered not a project level eir because they're insufficient details about the project. as stated need for a more subscription appears to be a misunderstanding of the height limits.
both of these features of the project provide some possibilities for infrastructure that both are well defined and fully analyzed in the eir with regard to the impact. the appellants also raised concerns that there are new public safety issues regarding impacts on trouble following certification. it however, the issues and effects are not new information. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to planning? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. the project level eir, but it
appears to more of a different eir, can you go into more detail about your response? >> we were able to analyze the project as a project level eir. enough information for us to be able to determine what those impacts would be. the dda provides enough information for us to do the analysis that we need in order to define what the impacts of the project would be when it is constructed. supervisor avalos: if you can describe what the major impacts are and how you feel satisfied this is the right approach could >> well, we have a comprehensive list of all the effects of that
project under that scheme, and an example -- supervisor avalos: an example would be great. >> for example, we have a representation of what the project would look under the development controls, and on that basis, we are able to impact -- figure out what the impact of the shadows would be on the project site. similarly, for wind, we were able to just a model boat of the project site at buildout using a plan, and under that plan, there are enough controls for us to be able to have an adequate level. supervisor avalos: and some you might have a range for how different parts of the island may be developed based on height. that is not all certain. we expect that as you move forward, this will be developed,
and you feel the analysis yet provided will give you the information to know the impacts. >> yes, i do. there is a certain amount of relief provided in the dda. there are enough specifics in there for us to be able to do that analysis. supervisor avalos: the impact of development within the islands, how we can actually -- we do not have a level of detail for what the projects art " or what development sites are born to be within the island itself, so it seems like you do not have a real depth of analysis to describe what the impacts will be a with building high on one part of the island versus selling the other, and how do you make up for that? >> we believe we actually do have the level of information
based on the zones in which development would occur. supervisor avalos: there was another point that was made about the change from redevelopment, tax increment financing towards infrastructure ifd financing. how does that change the staging of the project moving forward? i have been told that ifd funding would prolong financing, how we could have concurrent things or residents on the island. >> from the office of economic
development. the change we made, through the it infrastructure financing district, it was primarily a financing one. it was a tool to assist. but they work exactly the same. it is property-tax increments from future development that is used to secure and issue bonds. the appellants touched on this a lot during the presentation, but, in essence, the bondholder looks to what the security is, what they are purchasing bonds for. a bond issuance is exactly the same as property tax from future development, so we do not thing that will have an impact at all. it is a very similar financing tool. the underlying zoning as well as
the physical project that is before you, it did not change all as a result of the changed from re-development to infrastructure financing. the only difference is the amount of income and that is available. it is about 80 cents for coat tax bonds and 57 cents for infrastructure financing bonds, so one response we made to that then was to make a reduction in the minimum level of affordable housing to 20%. we are hoping to get that back up to 30% through state legislative changes that supervisor kim has encouraged supervisors ammiano to make at the state level, so this does not change all because of the financing. supervisor avalos: so you stay on the same time line?
>> with or without that that inflation, we would have the same, subdevelopment would proceed along the same. the tax increment bonds in this case would be issued. the developer would also actually be out in front. they would be reimbursed partially. it should have no impact on the fees. supervisor avalos: thank you. president chiu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: high was wondering if you could clarify some of these. the ferry and the 108 are included.
can you explain that and also talked-about home ownership could >> from the office of economic the moment again. so, obviously, transportation is a big issue in this project, and in response, there are a number of ways we mitigate potential trades effects. one would be that all households purchase a clipper card that could be used for either the ferry, transit, or muni, so all households would be required to purchase that fast does it. supervisor kim: -- to purchase up fast pass. supervisor kim: it is my understanding we cannot move forward with the building heights without approval from
the coast guard. the coast guard has been able to do this with many other cities with high rises, houston and long beach. if you could talk a little bit about that, as well. but the office of work force development. you are correct. we have worked closely with the coast guard and our team of design architects to come up with a process based on a height map, a very specific height map, given where you are on the island. buildings exceeding a certain height would have to go through a process to verify that that building would not injured year -- would not interfere with the coast guard system. staff will look to documentation that would detail whether or not this process had been followed and whether or not in direction would occur and what the appropriate measures to limit that interruption --
supervisor kim: and about the heights, but there was the initial draft eir, we have also talked a little bit about the deflects heights, but the eir, and maybe this is a question for planning, the eir that was written still takes into account the environmental impact if we bill them at the new maximum lowered heights or treasure island. is that correct even what heights differentiated based on location, the environmental impacts will be the same could >> that is absolutely correct. or less. supervisor kim: as detailed in the eir. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: mr.
president, and through the chair. the eir, a matter of discretion -- is that not the case? >> yes, that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: i think the proper inquiry for this discussion is about sufficient analysis, so we are able to honestly, comprehensively consider the environmental consequences of the project, so this sounds like a coin toss actually. >> well, i would address them in a slightly different manner. the question is whether we have enough information in order to form an analysis that would describe the environmental impacts of a project level.
supervisor mirkarimi: and based on the concerns articulated by the appellants, you think there is enough coverage that tends to those particular concerns and mitigation? >> that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: to the question of transit, i had made an amendment that had been honored by the project sponsors. is it possible for you or perhaps this other man to remind us what this looks like so we can be clear about what that amendment is >> sure. the office of economic development. so the amendment that was made in committee basically imposes
the impact fee on future office development, which i believe was up to 100,000 square feet, so that would apply to future development. currently, it only applies to the downtown district. supervisor mirkarimi: and the trigger for that is what? >> the trigger is development. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, and in regard to -- back to planning, the certification in the eir, it is that potentially we would, if it is structured not the same but similar, we would find different results. if you could just -- i want to hear in your interpretation what that means in the minds of the planning department.
>> right. i believe the assertion is that somehow we would find a different set of environmental impacts, and it is our opinion, as of the april 12 provided in advance of the planning board certification, we did not believe these changes in -- would result to changes in environmental effects and that that was not required. there are several bars enumerated in the c.b. guidelines that require certification, among them whether the proposed project, whether it would be significantly different or substantially greater with environmental effects that were reported in the eir, whether they're a big potential alternatives, and as we have
described in that memo, we believe that we circulation is not required. i -- i supervisor mirkarimi: -- can summon address this with regard to notification? president chiu: to our deputy city attorney. >> i think the particular section we're referring to is a subsection, which says while the appeal is pending and until the
eir is amended or recertified best required by the board, the city will not carry out the approval of a project that is the subject of an eir, so conducting informational hearings does not trigger -- that does not result in carrying out or consider the approval of the project. if the land use committee forwards the item as a procedural matter to the full board without actually taking an action or considering taking an action, which would be to forward it with recommendation to the full board, that does not trip this requirement. so it is a permissible process. the board of supervisors committees do this on a regular basis when there is an eir appeal pending. supervisor mirkarimi: in a
layman's terms, it would -- there would be a 10-day notification process? >> the process that the city has set up under chapter 31 -- it is up to any city or county to set up whatever process they choose. we provided for a 20-day time after the planning commission certifies and eir for anyone who was involved in the process to file an appeal with the board of supervisors. so until such an appeal is actually filed, the city and all its departments and commissions may proceed with the approval actions related to that project. however, once an appeal is filed, that is when eight freeze occurs on taking an action that would constitute an approval
action or considering an approval, which would be in the board's case, for a committee, forward a recommendation of approval to the full board of supervisors. supervisor mar: this area of law is so fuzzy and subjective. i recall yesterday at the land use committee -- i know other members of the planning department were there as well. i recall at the beginning of the hearing of the treasure island item a supervisor raised a question about not so much whether we are considering the item but more of were we to take any action. your response was we are not going to take any action or cannot. the only appropriate action would be to refer it to the full board without recommendation. but it is still very fuzzy to me whether the land use committee
considered approval of the project. that is making me a bit uncomfortable. i do know you advised as at the beginning of the meeting and it was clarified right before we were discussing it that we were not to take any action on the item. could you elaborate on that so i am absolutely clear that we did not "consider" the item? >> our typical practice is to do exactly what occurred yesterday. we usually announce at the very beginning of a hearing, so the public is aware of the position that there is an eir appeal pending. therefore, the board committee cannot taken action to for the item to the board with a recommendation. that would constitute either taking an action or considering the taking of an action. we try to make that clear at the
beginning of a hearing that what you are doing and the way the board process is set up is we conduct our public hearings through board committees, generally. when we do have an eir appeal pending, we allow those hearings to continue with the right notification that we are following through with the hearing process but the committee is not considering any action, which would be to forward it to the board with recommendation. the advice is if the committee wants to bring it before the full board, which is where the action would be taken to approve an item, that what the committee should do if they want to procedurally bring it before the full board is to pass it on without recommendation. that is appropriate under the terms of chapter 31. supervisor mar: i am reading subsection 8.3. it says that while the appeal is
pending the city shall not carry out -- we did not carry out -- or consider approval of the project -- and we did not consider approval of the project because it was made clear at the beginning of the hearing. is that correct? >> that is correct. supervisor mar: i have follow-up questions for mr. cooper. it is very subjective whether this project eir -- appellants are climbing in reality it is a program eir. i need more specifics about how you would distinguish that what is being considered has adequate analysis, as supervisor mercury mentioned. the appellant highlights there was not sufficient analysis to constitute a project-level review. that is on page 11. they go on to mention it did not
have the details necessary to assess, let alone mitigate, project-level impacts. that is on page 12. they conclude the plan was only conceptual, or could be changed in the future, and that the project level details for the development do not presently exists. they go on to explain that. could you give us more examples of why you are absolutely sure that this is a project eir and not a program eir? >> i would like to begin by saying we provide a full, comprehensive response to those issues in our response. >> >> -- supervisor mar: if you
could summarize those, that would be helpful for me. >> in general, we have provided enough information at a project level to be able to fully describe what the impact would be. that is really the response. supervisor mar: give one or 2 below examples, please. >> i would like to turn to victoria wise. >> transportation is an example in addition to wind and shadow. with regard to transportation, it is very detailed. the level of detail required in order to evaluate impact is the same detail we would require of a single development -- a tower
downtown. more specifically, we know the exact type of land uses that will be provided. that allows us to figure out the trip generation. with bicycle facilities, there are figures that show exactly where bicycle facilities are going to be located. not only that, but it shows the width of the facility. that is the kind of detail we would require for project-level analysis. transportation is an example. there are all kinds of details of what the street would look like, the sidewalks. supervisor mar: is it relevant that those could be changed, for example? >> i want to clarify the project description. the project description is very specific in virtually all
respects. mr. cooper asked before he did his presentation whether i could shorten the project description. i advised him know. it may have been tedious to listen to all that detail. but you should know the specificity of the project. the development on the island is very specific. there is a narrow band of the island where more developments can happen. there are areas where open space is extremely specific in terms of the amount of housing,
the amount of commercial space, different types of commercial space, neighborhoods servant broader retail, a hotel, etc. the thing that may be causing some confusion is that within the narrow band of geographic area where development will happen, and within that very specific development program in terms of land use, there is flex space that you might think of as sub-blocks where the program is specific, the geographic nature is specific, but there is flexibility in terms of where there is a particular massing, a particular skill. -- scale. supervisor mar: another is flexibility on the eastern side.